My understanding of the McKinsey deal (from across the Hudson - but with friends who work as contractors with companies for City agencies, just fyi), is that they were brought in because the City literally couldn't afford to hire the best people for whatever roles they needed. Plus, there were a pile of lawsuits that really made them leery of bringing on more employees in certain areas. Morally I agree with you that paying people less isn't the best goal - but the city taxes are murder and reducing personnel costs to one lump sum for a part of the City was a way to save money for the taxpayers. And same with the oversight, but in this case it's not about power having oversight or not. These are generally (as I understand it) workers and functionaries, the 'butts-in-seats' people in the office that make things work while the big guys do whatever it is they're doing. Sometimes they're the idea folks, but not often. Every lawsuit where NYC isn't potentially liable means less time and money spent to employ counsel for the city. Every HR dispute that's between an employee and their private employer is something that can't be thrown into the Post or the Journal to propagandize.

The group was also brought in with goals and expectations of results. Like reducing costs and violence at the named prisons (Rikers, etc) - they've failed. They were brought in to help streamline and support the Board of Health, and update their systems. They've so far failed and would be in worse shape if they hadn't subcontracted to smaller firms. The City finance department, they haven't made audits smoother either. Essentially, they promised results and skilled workers that the City couldn't afford to employ directly, and lied. So what started with a good value proposition to the City has turned into a nightmare, and decisive action is needed.